Enewsletter

Remember that the other person may be totally
wrong. But they don't think so. Don't condemn them. Don't attack
them. Any fool can do that. Try to understand them.

There is a reason why they think and act
as they do. Find that hidden reason, and you will have the key.

Try honestly to put yourself in their place.

If you say to yourself, "How would
I feel, how would I react if I were in their shoes?" you will
save yourself a lot of time and irritation, for "by becoming
interested in the cause, we are less likely to dislike the effect."

"Stop a minute to contrast your keen
interest in your own affairs with your mild concern about everything
else. Realize then that everybody else in the world feels exactly
the same way! Success in dealing with people depends on a sympathetic
grasp of their viewpoint."

Therefore, if you want to change people
without giving offense or arousing resentment, Rule 8 is:

Food for Thought

Rights, Liberation, and Uncertainty:
A Call for Strategic Advocacy

—Matt Ball

In his keynote address at the Animal Rights 2002 Conference, Professor
Peter Singer commented that the distinction between "animal
rights" and "animal liberation" was, for the most
part, irrelevant. However, in the mindset of advocates, I think that
there is an important distinction that can have an effect on our
dealings with the public and their possible reception of our message.

"Animal rights" is often offered in a simplistic manner
that is given to internal contradictions. This can lead to distortions
and parodies which distract from the animals' actual suffering. The
lack of both subtlety and focus in the general presentation of animal
rights can be seen in many aspects of advocacy, from the almost inevitable
degradation of most conversations to "your baby or your dog,"
to the claim that any animal's death at the hands of humans is immoral.

This latter focus on intentional death, while providing a single
simple concept, greatly detracts from our ability to convey a powerful
and compelling message of change. Do we really believe – and think
the public will agree – that any animal who dies at the hands
of a human should not have existed, no matter how pleasant their
life or how painless their death? Do we really believe that every
animal who dies of "natural" causes lived a desirable life,
regardless of how much they suffer from cold, starvation, disease,
and/or predation?

Is the world really this black-and-white?

The idea that it is wrong to kill animals for food may be very obvious
to animal rights activists. But to most of society, it is a foreign
idea. Most people currently see these issues in shades of gray. One
such person is Michael Pollan, who recently wrote a
powerful article regarding animal interests and rights. Although
the cover's title – "The Unnatural Idea of Animal Rights"
– implies a critique of the animal rights philosophy, Pollan's article
actually serves as one of the most devastating critiques of factory
farms ever to appear in the mainstream media:

More than any other institution, the American industrial
animal farm offers a nightmarish glimpse of what capitalism can
look like in the absence of moral or regulatory constraint. Here
in these places, life itself is redefined – as protein production
– and with it, suffering. That venerable word becomes “stress,”
an economic problem in search of a cost-effective solution, like
tail-docking or beak-clipping or, in the industry's latest plan,
by simply engineering the “'stress gene” out of pigs and chickens.
“Our own worst nightmare” such a place may well be; it is also
real life for the billions of animals unlucky enough to have been
born beneath these grim steel roofs, into the brief, pitiless life
of a 'production unit' in the days before the suffering gene was
found.

He has obvious sympathy with the reaction of most activists:

Vegetarianism doesn't seem an unreasonable response to such
an evil. Who would want to be made complicit in the agony of these
animals by eating them? You want to throw something against the
walls of those infernal sheds, whether it's the Bible, a new constitutional
right or a whole platoon of animal rightists bent on breaking in
and liberating the inmates.

However, having rejected a simplistic parody of the animal rights
view that could justify continued complicity in the cruelty of modern
agriculture – indeed, he does a commendable job of refuting many
common anti-animal arguments – Pollan also doesn't accept the world-view
offered by many animal rights advocates. Rather, he offers a thorough
presentation of utilitarian animal liberation philosophy – one that
doesn't see the world in black-and-white. His personal conclusion
is that while factory farms should be boycotted, humane farms are
okay, possibly even preferable to a vegetarian society because of
the good lives the animals on the farms are able to live before they
are killed.

His conclusion against the importance of vegetarianism is debatable.
It depends on a number of factors that we can't know for sure, including
what makes a life worth living, how much pleasure farmed animals
can experience compared to their suffering on farms such as those
endorsed by Pollan, and how "humane" these farms actually
are. (See also "Vegetarianism
vs. Mindful Meat Eating," in AlterNet.)

However, reaction among animal advocates to the publication of this
cover story for the New York Times Magazine has not been totally
positive. Rather than advance this mainstream condemnation of factory
farms and call to avoid complicity, some have spent their time condemning
Pollan for not advocating strict vegetarianism.

Compare this to the almost universally positive response that greeted
Time Magazine's cover
story on vegetarianism. Even though Time completely ignored
the vast cruelty of factory farms, and implied grave nutritional
difficulties in being vegetarian, it was widely cited by "the
movement."

These differing responses indicate that some ethical vegans may
be so caught up in their ideal of a vegan world that they cannot
see when we have been presented with a tremendous tool to help us
work against cruelty to animals. But we need to ask ourselves: Do
we want purity, or progress? Do we want to spend our limited time
and resources trying to "set straight" someone like Pollan
because he doesn't toe the animal rights party line? Shouldn't we
focus on reducing as much suffering as we can, rather than upholding
a rigid dogma?

As pointed out in the AlterNet
article: "The large majority of the population are not going
to turn vegetarian tomorrow...even vegetarians must be concerned
for how the animals that are still kept in agriculture are treated.
They can't say, 'because I'm vegetarian this is no longer an issue
for me, this is someone else's worry. Because, of course, the animals
are still being kept by society.'" And from the online
discussion of Pollan's article: "A conversation about the
pros and cons of various diets should be open-minded.... Does characterizing
meat-eaters as 'barbarians' really advance the debate?"

In the New York Times, Michael Pollan has exposed the ''stupefying
crime'' of factory farms, calling for a boycott to avoid complicity
in the animals' agony. He contends that, if not vegetarian, we should
personally witness exactly how the animals we eat live and die.

What more can we honestly expect from society today? Rather than
argue details – distracting from the main point of cruelty and complicity
– we should promote this view to a public that, while not generally
opposed to killing animals for food, might act to oppose the cruelty
of factory farming, if they would merely recognize its nightmarish
existence.

In the library, my son picked up your booklet,
with all the terrible pictures. We've always eaten meat, but after
seeing the booklet yesterday, we won't anymore. My husband and
I made a pact – the pictures upset us so much. We can't believe
that actually goes on. I love animals, but I had no idea.RE, Riverside, CA, 11/9/02

Vegan Outreach is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing the suffering of farmed animals by promoting informed, ethical eating.